SPEECH 

' 

»  ‘  •  ‘  *  '  ‘r  ’  : 

f  a  .f*  , 

OF 


HON.  T.  A.  HENDRICKS,  OF  INDIANA, 


ON 

■  i  ^  .  * 

' 


THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 


DELIVERED 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  JUNE  7,  1854. 


WASHINGTON: 


PRINTED  AT  THE  CONGRESSIONAL  GLOBE  OFFICE. 

1854. 


...  r--sr 


rV:}  XS.lV.Zj' '  7 

.*  /*v 
.  vor<  * 

<  i* 


5 

J 

,  iS 


t 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS. 


The  House  being  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  I 
on  the  state  of  the  Union — 

Mr.  HENDRICKS  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  do  not  rise  to  address  the 
committee  upon  the  subject  of  the  bill  introduced 
by  the  gentleman  from  California,  [Mr.  McDou- 
gall,]  providing  for  the  construction  of  a  rail¬ 
road  to  the  Pacific.  I  desire  to  address  the  com¬ 
mittee  in  reference  to  the  public  lands.  Upon  this 
bill,  however,  I  will  only  say  that,  as  I  now  un-  | 
derstand  it,  I  will  not  give  it  my  support.  I  am 
anxious  that  such  a  measure  shall  be  brought 
forward  as  that  I  can  give  it  my  support.  This 
bill  assumes  that  Congress  ought  not  to  establish 
the  route,  but  that  it  ought  to  be  decided  upon 
by  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment;  at  the  same  time,  it  excludes  from  Execu¬ 
tive  consideration  that  route  in  which  the  section 
of  country  which  I  represent  is  specially  inter¬ 
ested — the  central  or  St.  Louis  route.  If  it  is 
proper  that  the  Executive  should  decide  upon  the 
route  for  this  great  railroad,  it  is  right  that  that 
department  should  be  left  without  any  restric¬ 
tion  upon  the  subject.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say 
that  the  central  route,  in  which  the  greater  por¬ 
tion  of  the  country  is  interested,  is  not  practi¬ 
cable;  and  until  it  is  shown  that  it  cannot  be 
adopted,  I  will  not  support  a  bill  which  excludes 
it.  I  have  not  time  now  to  examine  the  other 
provisions  of  the  bill. 

Long  after  the  tariff  shall  cease  to  agitate  the 
country,  the  public  lands  will  remain  “  a  subject 
of  deep  and  enduring  interest,”  was  the  prophecy 
of  Mr.  Clay.  That  prophecy  has  been  fulfilled. 
The  Democratic  doctrine,  that  revenue  is  the  only 
proper  and  legitimate  purpose  of  taxation,  has 
been  acquiesced  in  by  all  parties,  and  become  our 
fixed  policy.  The  tariff  is  no  longer  a  subject  of 
party  strife.  But  the  public  domain — the  other 
source  of  national  revenue — is  a  subject  of  con¬ 
stantly  increasing  interest  and  controversy.  And 
upon  no  other  question  of  general  concern  is  pub¬ 
lic  opinion  so  unsettled, and  the  policy  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  so  unfixed.  In  reference  to  it  the  differ¬ 
ent  sections  of  the  country  are  supposed  to  have 


opposing  interests,  and  hence  the  many  and  con¬ 
flicting  propositions  for  its  management  and  dis¬ 
position.  The  lands  are  now  asked  by  every  in¬ 
terest,  and  for  almost  every  purpose;  by  States 
and  corporations;  by  colleges  and  asylums;  by 
academies  and  schools;  by  speculators  and  citi¬ 
zens.  They  are  asked  for  public  and  private  en¬ 
terprises;  for  religion  and  for  railroads;  for  charity 
and  for  education;  for  homes  and  for  monopolies. 
Every  interest,  great  and  small;  every  enterprise, 
good  and  bad,  is  clamoring  for  the  public  lands. 
Sir,  in  the  midst  of  this  confusion,  that  policy  is 
wisest  and  best  which  is  nearest  the  intention  and 
spirit  of  the  Constitution. 

The  many  measures  to  which  I  have  alluded, 
may  be  classed  under  one  of  two  general  proposi¬ 
tions;  first,  to  give  lands  upon  easy  terms  to  set¬ 
tlers;  and  second,  to  distribute  them  among  the 
States.  I  am  for  the  former,  and  against  the  latter 
proposition.  Being  in  favor  of  cheap  lands  to  the 
settler,  I  cannot  be  for  distribution  among  the 
States.  The  measures  are  incompatible;  they 
cannot  stand  together.  It  is  not  my  purpose  now 
to  give  the  reasons  of  my  support  of  the  home¬ 
stead  bill.  I  did  not  think  that  bill  free  from  ob¬ 
jection.  I  thought  then,  I  think  now,  that  it  is 
better  sustained  by  principle,  better  for  the  Gov¬ 
ernment,  and  better  for  the  settler,  after  he  has 
made  a  settlement  in  good  faith,  to  allow  him  to 
pay  the  Government  what  the  land  cost  her,  and 
receive  his  patent,  and  became  a  freeholder  at 
once,  rather  than  require  him  to  remain  upon  the 
land  for  five  years,  a  Government  tenant,  with¬ 
out  title,  and  without  power  to  sell.  I  earnestly 
labored  to  secure  for  him  this  privilege.  The 
Government  should  not  speculate  upon  the  homes 
she  secures  to  the  people;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
ought  the  citizen  to  receive  valuable  property 
from  the  Government  without  making  any  return? 
The  cost  is  small,  not  quite  twenty-two  cents  per 
acre,  easily  paid  by  the  settler,  and  the  patent 
secures  him  the  right  and  independence  of  a  free¬ 
holder.  I  supported  both  the  homestead  bills 
which  passed  this  House,  not  that  1  thought  them 
without  objection,  as  I  have  said,  but  because 


4 


they  seemed  the  best  measure  we  could  then  get 
for  the  settler;  but  I  will  say  to  gentlemen  with 
whom  I  then  voted,  that  I  fear  before  we  secure 
“  homes  for  the  homeless,  and  lands  for  the  land¬ 
less,”  we  must  adopt  the  better  policy  and  sounder 
principle,  of  cost  payment  and  patent  upon  settlement. 

But  sir,  it  is  the  other,  and  opposing  scheme  of 
distributing  the  public  lands  among  the  States, 
which  I  wish  now  to  discuss.  This  measure  is 
pressed  upon  Congress  in  two  bills.  The  first 
proposes  to  distribute  ten  millions  of  acres  among 
the  States  and  Territories,  for  the  support  of  the 
indigent  insane.  It  has  passed  both  branches  of 
Congress,  but  has  been  returned  to  the  Senate  with 
the  President’s  veto.  The  other  bill,  introduced 
into  this  House  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York, 
[Mr.  Bennett,]  is  now  pending,  and  proposes  to 
distribute  among  nineteen  of  the  States  thirty- 
three  millions  four  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
acres  “  for  the  support  of  schools,  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  railroads  or  canals,  or  for  other  public  or 
national  purposes.”  It  proposes  to  divide  these 
lands  among  the  nineteen  States,  in  proportion  to 
their  representation  in  Congress,  giving  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  fifty  thousand  acres  for  each  Senator  and 
Representative.  The  two  bills  would  distribute 
among  the  States  forty-three  millions  four  hun¬ 
dred  and  fifty  thousand  acres  of  the  public  lands. 

I  am  opposed  to  the  entire  scheme.  To  provide 
for  the  destitute  poor,  and  educate  their  children; 
to  educate  the  blind  and  the  deaf  and  dumb,  and 
to  provide  for  the  indigent  insane,  are  obligations 
upon  Government  which  I  freely  recognize,  and  to 
which  I  cheerfully  respond.  But,  sir,  upon  what 
government  do  these  obligations  rest  ?  Upon  the 
Federal  or  State  governments?  When  honored 
with  a  seat  in  the  Legislature  of  my  State,  I  sup¬ 
ported  the  bills  providing  for  popular  education 
and  public  charity.  But  when  asked  to  do  the 
same  thing  here,  I  cannot  do  it.  The  duty  and 
:>ower  of  Congress  do  not  extend  to  these  sub- 
ects.  Jurisdiction  over  them  not  being  conferred 
jy  the  Constitution  upon  Congress,  is  expressly 
retained  to  the  States.  The  power  to  dispose  of 
the  public  lands  is  given  by  the  Constitution  to 
Congress  in  very  general  and  comprehensive  terms, 
but  this- cannot  be  made  to  include  other  and  im¬ 
portant  powers;  and  in  its  exercise  we  cannot  as¬ 
sume  jurisdiction  otherwise  denied. 

The  power  being  conferred  exclusively  upon 
Congress,  the  duty  to  exercise  it,  and  wisely  to 
dispose  of  the  lands,  necessarily  results;  but,  I 
ask  the  friend^  of  this  measure,  if  the  discharge  of 
that  duty  is  the  end  and  object  sought,  or  is  it  not 
to  provide  education  and  charity  in  the  States  ? 
Are  these  bills  supported  for  the  purpose  of  making 
a  wise  disposition  of  the  lands,  and  discharging 
the  trust  under  which  the  Government  holds  them; 
and  is  it  truly  incidental  to  that  that  you  provide 
education  and  charity  in  the  States?  No,  sir. 
The  friends  of  the  measure  are  as  conscious  as  I 
am  that  the  real  aim  and  object  is  to  provide  educa¬ 
tion  and  charity,  and  make  railroads  in  the  States, 
and  that  the  grant  of  the  lands  is  the  pretext, 
the  means  used  to  accomplish  the  end.  By  such 
sophistries  in  legislation  Federalism  once  sought 
to  extend  the  powers  of  this  Government,  and 
give  it  a  controlling  influence  in  the  States.  Con¬ 
gress  has  power  to  collect  and  appropriate  money; 
but  who  will  claim  that  thegeneral  power  to  appro¬ 
priate  is  without  restriction,  and  that  Congress 


may  appropriate  money  to  purposes  not  contem¬ 
plated  in  the  Constitution  ?  The  power  to  dispose 
of  the  lands  is  not  more  general  and  comprehen¬ 
sive  than  the  power  of  appropriating  money;  yet 
it  is  claimed  that  the  latter  is  limited  and  restricted 
to  objects  v/ithin  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Govern¬ 
ment,  and  the  former  is  not.  This  is  not  sound 
reasoning.  The  rules  of  construction  which  limit 
the  one  restrict  the  other. 

I  Under  the  power  of  collecting  and  keeping 
money ,  it  was  once  held  that  Congress  might  estab¬ 
lish  a  National  Bank;  and  that  doctrine  and  con¬ 
struction  prevailed  until  exposed  by  President 
Jackson.  Banking  was  the  real  object — keeping 
the  public  moneys  safely  but  a  pretext.  The 
real  object  not  being  within  the  purposes  and 
powers  of  the  Government,  the  pretext  could  not 
make  the  measure  constitutional,  and  he  vetoed  it. 
The  doctrine  that  powers  conferred  upon  Congress 
should  not  be  used  to  cover  up  the  exercise  of 
powers  not  conferred,  gave  his  Administration  at 
the  time  much  of  its  strength,  and  has  since  given 
it  great  influence  in  the  country.  Sir,  by  the  late 
;  veto  of  the  bill  giving  lands  to  the  States  for  the 
i  support  of  the  insane,  the  Government  has  been 
1  brought  back  to  its  old  position.  Although  I  may 
not  be  able  to  concur  with  the  President  in  all'of 
his  positions  and  reasoning,  yet  I  fully  indorse 
the  veto.  It  will  give  his  Administration  high 
position  in  the  country. 

I  will  not  further  discuss  the  question  of  the 
power  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  distribute  the 
public  lands  among  the  States,  for  the  purposes 
contemplated  in  these  bills.  I  wish  to  examine  the 
scheme  as  a  measure  of  expediency;  and  first,  as 
a  financial  measure.  It  is  proposed  to  take  from 
the  General  Government  forty-three  millions  four 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  acres  of  the  public  lands, 
and  the  proceeds  of  their  sale,  and  distribute  them 
among  the  States.  Under  the  present  system,  the 
lands  yield  a  revenue  of  about  $1  25  per  acre;  and 
the  entire  quantity  proposed  to  be  distributed  by 
these  bills,  would  bring  into  our  Treasury  about 
$53,000,000.  If  that  sum  be  withdrawn  from  our 
revenues,  its  place  must  be  supplied.  And,  sir, 
by  whom  will  it  be  supplied  ?  Government  has  the 
power  to  tax,  and  the  faculty  of  expending,  but  it 
possesses  no  power  to  produce.  The  supply  must 
come  from  the  tax-payers  of  the  nation,  the  citizens 
of  the  States.  The  men  who  supply  the  revenues 
to  the  States  fill  the  coffers  of  this  Government. 
They  fill  the  emptied  coffers  of  both  State  and 
Federal  Government.  Were  we  now  to  with¬ 
draw  from  the  National  Treasury  $20,000,000 
and  distribute  it  among  the  States,  we  would  de¬ 
crease  State  taxation;  but,  to  pay  the  debt  and 
defray  the  expenses  of  the  nation,  must  not  the 
emptied  vaults  be  filled,  and  filled,  sir,  by  the 
very  men  whose  State  taxes  have  been  decreased? 
Just  so  far  as  we  have  reduced  State,  we  have  in¬ 
creased  National  taxation.  And  where  is  the  gain  ? 
None,  sir,  none;  but  much  loss;  loss  in  this,  that 
State  taxation,  being  upon  all  property  is  equal, 
each  man  paying  in  proportion  to  his  wealth — his 
ability  to  pay — while  Federal  taxation,  not  being 
at  all  upon  the  real  estate  of  the  country,  but  upon 
the  property  which  is  consumed  by  the  people,  is 
1  unequal.  The  men  of  wealth  may  not,  and  in  hun¬ 
dreds  of  thousands  of  cases  do  not,  consume  more 
of  the  imported  goods  which  pay  a  duty,  than  their 
poorer  neighbors.  By  taking  from  the  National 


5 


Treasury  and  giving  to  the  States,  we  would 
greatly  relieve  the  property  holders  from  State 
taxation,  but  just  so  much  we  increase  the  burdens 
upon  the  men  who  eat  and  wear  and  use  the  goods 
which  are  imported,  and  which  are  taxed  by  this 
Government.  I  feel,  sir,  that  I  have  shown,  that 
if  this  land  distribution  scheme  would  secure  to 
the  States  the  full  amount  of  the  $53,000,000  j 
which  it  would  withdraw  from  the  National  Treas¬ 
ury,  it  would  be  an  unwise  measure.  But  I  go 
much  further  and  assert,  that  while  the  lands 
bring  this  Government  $1  25  per  acre,  the  States, 
under  these  bills,  could  not  realize  from  them 
more  than  the  one  half  of  that  amount. 

The  price  of  land,  like  that  of  other  property,  is  1 
greatly  regulated  by  demand  and  supply.  Under  j 
these  bills,  land  warrants  would  issue  to  the  States  ; 
to  the  amount  of  forty-three  millions  four  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  acres.  The  warrants  would 
be  placed  under  the  control  of  the  States  immedi-  j 
ately  upon  the  passage  of  the  laws.  Under  the 
provisions  of  the  bills,  the  States  cannot  make  the 
locations  and  hold  the  lands  themselves,  but  may 
sell  and  assign  the  warrants,  and  the  purchasers 
will  make  the  locations.  There  would  be  a  race 
of  speed  among  the  States,  to  furnish  the  market 
before  the  extraordinary  supply  would  reduce  the 
price,  and  at  once  there  would  be  thrown  into  the 
market  land  warrants  to  the  large  amount  I  have 
mentioned.  At  no  time,  not  even  in  1836,  when 
the  spirit  of  speculation  was  wildest  in  the  coun¬ 
try,  has  there  been  a  demand  equal  to  such  a 
supply.  For  many  years  past,  the  demand,  as 
shown  by  the  sales,  has  not  exceeded,  and  I  think 
not  reached,  an  average  of  three  millions  of  acres 
per  annum.  I  ask  the  friends  of  this  measure, 
what  can  the  States  realize  from  the  sales  of  their 
warrants,  when  the  supply  exceeds  the  demand 
by  more  than  forty  millions  of  acres?  Sir,  we 
cannot  estimate  the  depreciation  in  a  market  thus 
glutted. 

Look  at  the  effect  produced  upon  the  price  by 
the  issue  of  land  warrants  to  the  soldiers  under 
the  laws  of  February,  1847,  and  of  September, 
1850.  During  the  year  ending  November  1, 1851, 
warrants  were  issued  amounting  to  four  millions  , 
six  hundred  and  forty  thousand  six  hundred  and 
eighty  acres,  and  during  the  subsequent  year  about 
the  same  number.  These  warrants  were  sent  into 
every  neighborhood  in  the  country;  and  wherever 
there  was  a  purchaser,  a  warrant  was  likely  to  be 
found.  A  large  portion  of  the  warrants  were 
never  thrown  into  market,  but  located  by  the  war¬ 
rantees.  Under  such  circumstances,  when  the 
market  supply  must  have  fallen  greatly  below  four 
millions  of  acres  per  annum,  what  price  did  the 
warrants  command  ?  I  have  not  accurate  inform¬ 
ation  on  this  subject,  but  I  think  I  am  safe  in 
saying  that  during  the  years  1851-’52  theaverage 
market  value  of  the  warrants  of  one  hundred  and 
sixty  acres  did  not  exceed  $125,  or  about  seventy- 
eight  cents  per  acre.  If  a  supply  so  little  beyond 
the  demand  reduced  the  price  of  the  public  lands 
so  greatly,  what  will  be  the  depreciation  when  the 
supply  is  increased  ten  times  as  much;  when  at 
once  there  is  thrown  into  the  market  a  supply  | 
equal  to  the  demand  of  fifteen  years;  and  when, 
instead  of  being  scattered  over  the  country,  the 
warrants  are  thrown,  in  immense  quantities,  into 
the  stock  markets  ?  Sir,  my  judgment  is  well 
satisfied  that  the  States  would  not  realize  for 


the  lands  distributed  under  these  bills  fifty  cents 
per  acre. 

To  favor  the  States,  we  are  asked  to  go  for  land 
distribution;  a  miserable  scheme  that  would  take 
from  the  General  Government  $53,000,000,  to 
distribute  among  the  States  of  the  Union  less 
than  $22,000,000.  This  is  a  statesmanship  that 
abandons  the  general  good  to  address  a  supposed 
local  interest.  Sir,  the  scheme  is  wrong — wrong 
because  it  will  increase  the  burdens  of  the  tax¬ 
payers — wrong  because  it  is  against  sound  prin¬ 
ciple — and  wrong  because  it  is  a  shameful  squan¬ 
dering  of  the  property  of  the  General  Govern¬ 
ment,  without  securing  to  the  States  any  adequate 
or  substantial  good?  Whose  scheme  is  this? 
Who  is  to  be  benefited  by  it  ?  Mr.  Chairman, 
let  us  suppose  the  deed  done,  these  bills  passed, 
and  the  warrants  delivered  to  the  State  authorities. 
The  newspapers  have  been  filled  with  notices  of 
the  times  and  places  of  the  sales  of  the  warrants. 
Let  us  attend  some  of  the  sales.  On  Wall  street, 
New  York  sells  her  six  millions  of  acres;  Penn¬ 
sylvania  is  selling  her  five  millions  in  Philadelphia; 
and  New  England  her  six  millions  in  Boston. 
Whom  do  we  meet?  The  laborer  purchasing  a 
homestead  ?  The  mechanic  and  the  farmer  secur¬ 
ing  lands  for  their  boys?  They  are  not  there. 
At  such  sales  labor  is  not  a  buyer.  Modest  and 
retiring,  the  “sons  of  toil”  are  crowded  back, 
while  speculation,  wealth,  and  associated  capital 
occupy  the  front  places,  and  speak  in  controlling 
language.  These  bills  do  not  limit  the  quantity 
of  the  land  scrip  that  may  be  purchased  by  any 
one  man  or  association  of  men.  The  sales  are 
over,  the  receipts  by  the  States  are  small,  but 
warrants  to  locate  forty-three  millions  of  acres  of 
the  public  lands  are  in  the  vaults  of  stockjobbers, 
speculators,  and  foreign  capitalists.  The  next 
step  is  soon  taken.  The  locations  are  made,  and 
the  richest  and  mostdesirable  portions  of  the  lands 
are  gone  from  the  Government,  and  are  under  the 
control  and  power  of  capital.  Industry  is  ex¬ 
cluded  except  upon  hard  terms.  There  are  no 
more  homesteads  except  at  the  speculators  price. 
Sir,  this  measure  is  a  scheme  for  land  monopoly, 
that  enemy  of  civil  liberty  and  greatest  curse  to  any 
people.  The  struggle  between  labor  and  capital 
is  very  unequal,  even  when  a  good  standing  place 
upon  the  soil  is  given  to  labor,  but  if  the  lands  are 
given  to  capital,  the  contestis  over;  labor  bends 
the  knee  and  capital  rules.  Mr.  Clay’s  distribu¬ 
tion  measure  was  condemned  by  the  country,  and 
I  believe  abandoned  by  himself  and  his  party. 
But  he  proposed  no  sale  of  land  scrip,  no  monopoly 
of  land.  The  present  system  of  sales  was  to 
continue,  and  the  proceeds  to  be  distributed  among 
the  States.  Mr.  Clay’s  measure — condemned  and 
abandoned — was  full  of  excellence  and  perfection, 
compar%l  with  this  scheme. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  go  against  this  measure  be¬ 
cause  I  am  an  earnest  friend  of  the  homestead 
policy.  I  would  rejoice  to  see  every  man  a  free¬ 
holder,  and  industry  with  no  burdens  to  bear 
while  she  tills  the  soil.  In  my  judgment  no  man 
can  claim  to  be  a  friend  of  the  homestead  policy — 
of  cheap  lands  to  the  settler — and  support  this 
mighty  scheme  of  land  monopoly.  Do  not  these 
bills  take  from  the  settlers  at  once  forty-three  mil¬ 
lions  of  acres  of  the  lands?  And  does  not  one  of 
the  amendments  to  the  bill,  offered  by  the  gentle¬ 
man  from  New  York,  [Mr.  Bennett,]  propose 


6 


that  the  warrants  transferred  by  the  States,  shall 
be  located  upon  alternate  half  sections,  and  that 
the  remaining;  half  sections  shall  not  be  sold  for 
less  than  $2  50  per  acre?  Forty-three  millions 
are  given  to  the  States,  and  upon  thirty-three  mil¬ 
lions  of  the  remaining  lands  the  price  is  doubled. 
The  settler  shall  be  charged  a  double  price  to  make 
up  the  loss  for  the  amount  given  away  to  the 
States,  and  to  enable  the  speculator  to  get  a  high 
price  for  his  lands.  In  other  words,  the  settler 
who  is  buying  land  for  a  home,  shall  pay  a  double 
price  for  it,  that  this  Government  may  provide 
schools  and  asylums  in  the  old  and  wealthy 
States.  Sir,  I  have  no  language  strong  enough  to 
express  my  abhorrence  of  this  proposition.  We 
cannot  give  the  lands  to  the  States  in  large  quan¬ 
tities,  and  secure  homesteads  to  the  people  upon 
easy  terms.  It  is  not  a  good  answer,  to  say  there 
will  be  lands  enough  left.  There  will  be  lands 
left  I  know,  but  they  will  be  inaccessible  to 
the  settler.  This  measure  would  throw  forty- 
three  millions  of  acres  into  the  hands  of  specula¬ 
tors.  They  would  secure  the  lands  adjoining  the 
settlements — upon  the  rivers — the  rich  bottom  land 
and  the  ocean  coast;  and  the  emigrant,  to  secure  a 
home,  must  pay  the  speculator’s  price,  or  with  his 
family,  pass  beyond  the  settlements,  beyond  the 
monopolized  lands,  beyond  markets,  and  schools, 
and  civilization,  and  upon  refuse  lands  take  up 
his  abode  in  the  wilderness. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Bennett] 
bases  his  bill  upon  the  position  that  the  western 
States  have  obtained,  by  grants  from  Congress, 
more  than  their  proportion  of  the  lands;  and  he 
entitles  it  “  a  bill  to  equalize  the  grants  of  lands 
to  the  several  States.”  Sir,  if  an  account  of  the 
benefits  realized  by  the  States  from  the  public 
lands  is  to  be  taken,  I  will  undertake  to  maintain 
that  it  is  in  favor  of  the  western  States,  and  that 
they  have  returned  largely  over  an  equivalent  for 
every  grant  which  they  have  received.  You  have 
given  us  lands  for  schools  and  seminaries,  but  in 
return  have  required  us  to  allow  the  public  lands 
to  remain  untaxed  for  five  years  after  their  sale. 
To  facilitate  your  sales  we  waived  a  sovereign 
right,  and  for  that  period  the  lands  were  free  from 
the  burdens  of  State  and  local  government — a  sur¬ 
render  valuable  to  you,  but  burdensome  upon  us. 
When  lands  have  been  given  to  aid  our  internal 
improvements,  it  has  been  upon  the  condition  that 
our  citizens  should  give  an  enhanced  price  for  the 
adjoining  lands. 

A  most  remarkable  speech  was  made  a  few 
weeks  since  by  a  gentleman  from  North  Carolina, 
[Mr.  Rogers.]  He  asserted  that  the  lands  have 
cost,  at  the  lowest  estimate,  $500,000,000,  over  and 
above  what  has  been  received  from  their  sales. 
The  gentleman  would  be  entitled  to  credit  for  the 
boldness  of  his  proposition,  if  it  had  beerilbriginal 
with  him.  But  he  says  he  gets  the  facts  from  a 
speech  delivered  by  the  gentleman  from  New 
York,  [Mr.  Bennett,]  during  the  last  Congress. 
Why  go  to  the  gentleman  from  New  York  for 
authority?  Better  refer  to  the  public  documents. 
But  they  would  not  serve  the  gentleman  in  the 
argument  he  was  making. 

Sir,  I  can  but  very  briefly  notice  this  question. 
To  sustain  their  position,  that  the  lands  have  been 
a  charge  upon,  and  not  a  source  of  revenue  to  the 
Government,  the  gentlemen  bring  into  the  account 
the  most  unlooked  for  and  astonishing  charges. 


If  the  language  were  becoming  this  place,  I  would 
term  it  a  ‘‘trumped-up  account.”  First  they 
charge  to  the  cost  of  the  lands  the  $15,01)0,000 
and  interest  paid  for  Louisiana,  in  1803,  and  the 
amount  subsequently  paid  for  Florida.  A  great 
Territory  was  acquired,  I  agree,  and  a  most  valu¬ 
able  acquisition  was  made;  but,  sir,  Mr.  Jefferson 
and  his  party  friends  did  not  make  the  purchase 
of  Louisiana  so  much  to  secure  lands,  as  to  ex¬ 
tend  our  sovereignty,  to  obtain  a  safer  western 
boundary,  and  to  secure  the  control  of  the  Missis¬ 
sippi  river,  so  necessary  to  our  national  defense 
and  security,  and  so  important  to  the  freedom, 
safety,  and  enlargement  of  our  commerce;  and 
in  these  respects  the  acquisition  was  worth  to  us 
greatly  more  than  the  amount  paid.  To  extend 
our  boundary  to  the  ocean  and  gulf  in  that  direc¬ 
tion,  and  thus  increase  our  security  in  a  military 
point  of  view,  Florida  was  purchased.  Consider¬ 
ations  of  national  defense  and  of  commercial 
policy  induced  the  purchases  of  Louisiana  and 
Florida,  and  their  cost  is  not  properly  chargeable 
to  the  public  lands. 

I  will  pass  over  many  items  of  the  account  that 
are  worthy  of  notice,  and  among  them  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  the  forces  kept  upon  the  frontier,  and 
come  to  the  most  remarkable  charges,  to  wit,  the 
cost  of  the  Florida,  Black  Hawk,  and  other  Indian 
wars,  set  down  at  $200,000,000,  and  the  cost  of 
the  Mexican  war  charged  at  $217,175,517,  making 
together  the  modest  sum  of  $417,175,517.  Who, 
Mr.  Chairman,  ever  before  dreamed  that  the  ex¬ 
penses  of  these  wars  of  the  nation  were  chargeable 
to  the  public  lands?  In  the  opinion  of  the  gentle¬ 
men,  we  have  waged  wars  of  conquest;  land  was 
the  object;  land  was  the  acquisition;  and  land 
must  be  charged  with  the  expenses.  Sir,  I  know 
of  no  act  of  war  on  the  part  of  this  Government, 
towards  the  Indians,  or  towards  any  nation,  which 
attaches  disgrace  to  our  flag.  In  my  judgment, 
that  flag  has  never  been  carried  in  wrong  against 
any  people — never  but  in  the  right.  When  the 
bloody  and  merciless  savages  were  burning  the 
homes,  and  massacreing  the  people  of  the  settle¬ 
ments  in  Florida,  our  forces  were  sent  in  war,  in 
righteous,  defensive  war,  against  them.  After  a 
prolonged  and  most  harrassing  strugglethey  were 
subdued,  and  our  Government,  as  the  best,  indeed 
the  only  means  of  safety,  and  security  for  con¬ 
tinued  peace,  took  steps  for  their  removal  to  other 
lands  beyond  the  Mississippi,  and  remote  from 
the  settlements.  That  was  not  a  war  for  the  con¬ 
quest  of  territory;  it  was  waged  for  the  defense  of 
the  property  and  lives  of  our  citizens.  As  well 
may  the  commerce  of  the  country  be  taxed  with 
the  costs  of  the  war  of  1812,  because  we  then 
fought  for  its  freedom  and  safety,  as  the  lands  with 
the  Florida  or  other  Indian  wars. 

Why  charge  as  a  part  of  the  cost  of  the  lands 
the  expensesof  theMexican  war?  Was  that,  too, 
a  war  of  conquest,  waged  to  acquire  territory  ? 
I  suppose  the  gentlemen  so  hold.  The  opponents 
of  that  war,  those  who  gave  “aid  and  comfort” 
to  the  enemy,  at  the  time  so  charged.  During  its 
progress  I  believed  it  just  and  right;  I  believe  so 
still.  The  vindication  of  the  country’s  honor 
required  it.  Many  wrongs  had  been  done  our 
citizens,  and  they  had  gone  unredressed,  until  at 
length,  our  borders  were  crossed,  our  country  in¬ 
vaded  by  an  armed  foe,  and  the  blood  of  our  cit¬ 
izens  was  shed  under  their  own  flag.  Peace  was 


no  longer  possible;  war  was  forced  upon  us.  It  j 
was  not  a  war  of  conquest.  The  blood  of  our 
murdered  citizens  called  to  be  avenged.  As  the 
Missouri  Senator,  in  his  “Thirty  Years’  View,” 
says  of  the  war  of  1812,  our  war  with  Mexico 
“  was  necessary  to  the  honor  and  interest  of  the 
United  States,  and  was  bravely  fought  and  hon¬ 
orably  concluded,  and  makes  a  proud  era  in  our 
history.”  Sir,  how  miserably  weak  is  the  claim 
of  the  old  States  to  land  distribution,  when,  to 
sustain  it,  they  must  place  our  country  in  the 
wrong,  and  charge  upon  the  public  lands  the  ex¬ 
penses  of  wars  waged  for  the  honor  of  the  whole 
country. 

I  have  asked  why  the  gentlemen  do  not  refer  to 
the  public  documents  to  prove  the  lands  a  charge 
upon,  and  not  a  source  of  revenue  to,  the  Govern¬ 
ment.  I  will  show  that  the  documents  would  not 
serve  their  purpose.  In  his  message,  at  the  com¬ 
mencement  of  this  session,  the  President  says: 

“You  will  perceive,  from  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  that  opinions  which  have  often  been  expressed  i 
in  relation  to  the  operation  of  the  land  system,  as  not  being 
a  source  of  revenue  to  the  Federal  Treasury,  were  erro¬ 
neous.  The  net  profits  from  the  sale  of  the  public  lands  to 
June  30, 1853,  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $53,289,465.” 

If  the  gentlemen  will  refer  to  the  last  report  of  1 1 
the  Commissionerof  the  General  Land  Office,  they 
will  find  that  by  another  and  most  accurate  esti-  || 
mate,  “  the  net  receipt  from  the  public  lands  over 
and  above  every  cost  is  $60,381,217  79.”  And 
that  out  of  the  lands  the  Government  has  dis¬ 
charged  its  obligations  to  the  soldiers  of  1812,  of 
the  Indian  wars,  and  of  the  Mexican  war,  to  the 
amount  of  $14,768,432  29.  This  sum  it  is  proper 
to  add  to  the  net  profits.  The  Commissioner,  in 
his  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the  lands,  included  the 
amounts  paid  for  Louisiana  and  Florida.  These 
sums  I  have  attempted  to  show  should  not  be 
included  as  a  part  of  the  cost  of  the  lands.  They 
amountfor  principal  and  interest  to  $30,019,122  09.  I 
This  sum  being  deducted  from  the  cost  of  the 
lands,  and  the  amounts  given  in  lands  to  discharge 
the  obligations  to  soldiers  being  added  to  the  re¬ 
ceipts,  we  have,  as  shown  by  the  Commissioner’s 
report,  the  profits  on  lands  to  this  time,  over  and  1 
above  all  proper  charges,  $105,168,368  17.  The 
Commissioner  estimates  the  lands  unsold,  after 
deducting  the  cost  of  survey,  management,  and 
sale,  at' $283,715,713,  which,  added  to  the  profits 
already  made,  make  the  public  lands  worth  to  the 
Government,  over  and  above  every  proper  charge, 
the  immense  sum  of  $388,884,081.  For  the  basis 
of  these  estimates  I  refer  gentlemen  to  House  doc¬ 
ument  of  this  session  No.  1,  pages  110,  111,  and 
112.  To  the  same  document  I  refer  gentlemen  for 
the  fact,  that  the  lands  when  sold  to  the  western 
people  have  not  cost  the  Government  quite  twenty- 
two  cents  per  acre;  and  that  upon  the  lands  sold 
to  them  the  Government  has  made  a  clear  profit 
of  one  dollar  and  three  cents  per  acre.  And  in 
the  same  document  it  will  be  found  that,  upon  the 
lands  in  the  State  of  Indiana,  the  Government  has 
made  a  profit  of  over  sixteen  millions  of  dollars. 

Sir,  we  are  asked  to  equalize  the  grants  of  lands 
to  the  several  States;  but  how?  By  returning  to 
the  people  of  the  W est  the  many  millions  of  profit 
made  off  of  them  in  the  land  sales  ?  By  returning 
to  the  farmers  of  Indiana  the  $16,000,000  which 
they  have  paid  for  the  lands  they  cultivate,  over 
and  above  their  cost  ?  When  and  how  have  we 


received  any  adequate  return?  Our  commerce  is 
greatly  obstructed,  and  heavily  taxed  at  the  falls 
of  the  Ohio;  our  produce  has  paid  many  millions 
of  dollars  on  its  way  to  market  past  that  point. 
Yet  we  are  constantly  refused  any  sufficient  ap¬ 
propriation  for  the  removal  of  that  obstruction. 
Give  us  but  the  one  eighth  part  of  the  profits  the 
farmers  of  Indiana  have  paid  upon  the  lands  they 
cultivate,  and  our  commerce  will  be  provided  for. 

If  an  accounting  is  asked,  let  it  be  rendered. 
Credit  each  section  with  the  amounts  paid  into 
the  national  Treasury,  and  charge  the  special 
benefits  received,  and  when  the  balances  are  de¬ 
clared,  let  them  be  paid  to  the  section  to  which 
they  may  be  coming;  but  I  will  say  to  gentlemen 
of  the  old  States,  you  will  get  no  land  distribution, 
but  the  great  rivers  of  the  West  will  be  so  im¬ 
proved  that  our  produce  will  float  in  safety,  and 
without  tax  on  its  way  to  market. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  speak  very  briefly  of 
this,  as  a  party  question.  Since  1  became  a  voter 
it  has  been  my  pride  and  pleasure  to  act  with  the 
Democratic  party.  I  feel  great  solicitude  that  its 
position  be  consistent  upon  this  measure,  and 
satisfy  the  jast  expectations  of  the  country.  No 
party  can  be  truly  great  unless  it  stand  upon  sound 
principles,  and  be  not  moved  from  that  position. 

In  1841,  when  Mr.  Clay,  as  the  acknowledged 
leader  of  the  Whig  party,  brought  forward  and 
urged  his  measure  for  the  distribution  of  the  pro¬ 
ceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  our  party  took 
decided  ground  against  it.  In  1844  our  national 
convention  adopted  the  following  resolution,  as  a 
part  of  our  platform: 

“  Resolved,  That  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  ought 
to  be  sacredly  applied  to  the  national  objects  specified  in 
the  Constitution  ;  and  that  we  are  opposed  to  the  law  lately 
adopted,  and  to  any  law  for  the  distribution  of  such  pro¬ 
ceeds  among  the  States,  as  alike  inexpedient  in  policy,  and 
repugnant  to  the  Constitution.” 

In  no  political  contest  since  1832,  have  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  two  parties  been  so  decidedly  and 
entirely  the  subject  of  controversy  as  in  1844.  The 
decision  of  the  people  was  in  favor  of  Democratic 
principles  and  Democratic  policy;  and  land  distri¬ 
bution  was  condemned.  In  1848,  our  party  reas¬ 
serted  the  doctrines  of  1844.  in  that  contest  we 
were  beaten;  but  our  principles  were  not  repudi¬ 
ated.  The  Whig  party,  as  its  subsequent  history 
has  shown,  achieved  the  victory;  but  did  not  cap¬ 
ture  our  flag.  Offices  were  secured;  but  Whig 
principles  were  not  established.  At  the  convention 
of  1852,  our  standard  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
our  present  Chief  Magistrate,  with  our  political 
doctrines  written  upon  it;  and  as  a  part,  the  fol¬ 
lowing: 

“  Resolved,  That  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  ought 
to  be  sacredly  applied  to  the  national  objects  specified  in 
the  Constitution  ;  and  that  we  are  opposed  to  any  law  for 
the  dist^ution  of  such  proceeds  among  the  States,  as  alike 
inexpetflkit  in  policy  and  repugnant  to  the  Constitution.” 

But  two  years  since  we  went  before  the  coun¬ 
try  proclaiming  as  the  policy  of  our  party  oppo¬ 
sition  to  land  distribution,  and  denouncing  it  “  as 
alike  inexpedient  in  policy,  and  repugnant  to  the 
Constitution;”  and  now,  with  a  controlling  ma¬ 
jority  in  Congress,  we  are  proposing  to  enact  the 
most  stupendous  and  objectionable  distribution 
scheme  ever  known  to  the  country.  Where  are 
our  pledges  given  in  1852,  and  our  obligations 
then  incurred?  Sir,  if  we  forget  or  disregard 


8 


them,  I  am  rejoiced  to  believe  that  our  President 
will  not;  and  if  our  votes  will  not,  that  his  veto 
will  vindicate  the  good  faith  of  our  party.  This 
is  not  the  time  to  abandon  our  principles — to  de¬ 
sert  our  old  positions.  Our  population  is  increas¬ 
ing,  our  States  are  multiplying,  our  country  ex¬ 
tending,  and  our  interests  becoming  complicated, 
and  sometimes  conflicting.  Never  before  has  it 
been  so  important  to  adhere  closely  to  the  theory 
of  our  system,  to  confine  the  Federal  Government 
within  its  prescribed  limits,  and  to  leave  the  States 
to  do  all  their  work.  The  history  of  our  past, 


rich  with  the  achievements  of  the  American  De¬ 
mocracy — our  present  greatness,  obtained  mainly 
by  the  efforts  of  that  party,  admonish  us  to  main¬ 
tain  the  doctrines  which  have  given  the  past  its 
glory,  and  the  present  its  greatness,  and  which 
will  secure  to  us  a  future  “as  the  past  has  been.” 
The  governing  doctrines  of  our  past  should  not 
be  abandoned  for  a  supposed  temporary  or  local 
advantage.  A  glorious  future  is  not  to  be  secured 
by  expedients.  Truth,  sound  doctrine,  will  ac¬ 
complish  that  highest  good  intended  for  us  by 
Him  who  holds  our  destiny  in  his  hands. 


